Lukas Ernstbrunner1, Jean-David Werthel2, Eric Wagner2, Taku Hatta2, John W Sperling3, Robert H Cofield2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: sperling.john@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe glenoid bone loss remains a challenge in patients requiring shoulder arthroplasty and may necessitate glenoid bone grafting. The purpose of this study was to determine results, complications, and rates of failure of glenoid bone grafting in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Forty-one shoulders that underwent primary reverse arthroplasty between 2006 and 2013 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (mean, 2.8 years; range, 2-6 years) were reviewed. Thirty-four (83%) received corticocancellous grafts and 7 (17%) structural grafts. RESULTS: Active range of motion and pain levels were significantly improved (P < .001), with mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 77, Simple Shoulder Test score of 9, and patient satisfaction of 93% at the most recent follow-up. Preoperative severe glenoid erosion and increasing body mass index were significantly associated with worse American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (P = .04). On radiographic evaluation, 7 patients (18%) had grade 1 or grade 2 glenoid lucency. Glenoid bone graft incorporation was observed in 31 patients (78%). Twelve patients (30%) suffered from grade 1 or grade 2 scapular notching. All of the patients with structural grafts showed graft incorporation and no signs of glenoid lucency. CONCLUSION: Although glenoid lucency, glenoid graft resorption, and scapular notching were present at short-term to midterm follow-up, none of the patients needed revision surgery. Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid reconstruction using bone graft relieved pain and restored shoulder function and stability.
BACKGROUND: Severe glenoid bone loss remains a challenge in patients requiring shoulder arthroplasty and may necessitate glenoid bone grafting. The purpose of this study was to determine results, complications, and rates of failure of glenoid bone grafting in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Forty-one shoulders that underwent primary reverse arthroplasty between 2006 and 2013 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (mean, 2.8 years; range, 2-6 years) were reviewed. Thirty-four (83%) received corticocancellous grafts and 7 (17%) structural grafts. RESULTS: Active range of motion and pain levels were significantly improved (P < .001), with mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 77, Simple Shoulder Test score of 9, and patient satisfaction of 93% at the most recent follow-up. Preoperative severe glenoid erosion and increasing body mass index were significantly associated with worse American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (P = .04). On radiographic evaluation, 7 patients (18%) had grade 1 or grade 2 glenoid lucency. Glenoid bone graft incorporation was observed in 31 patients (78%). Twelve patients (30%) suffered from grade 1 or grade 2 scapular notching. All of the patients with structural grafts showed graft incorporation and no signs of glenoid lucency. CONCLUSION: Although glenoid lucency, glenoid graft resorption, and scapular notching were present at short-term to midterm follow-up, none of the patients needed revision surgery. Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid reconstruction using bone graft relieved pain and restored shoulder function and stability.
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-09-10